tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3160207767503480073..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: Religion Not Allowed In ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65046017502502531682014-04-15T04:38:48.595-07:002014-04-15T04:38:48.595-07:00Jeff: So apparently it's not vacuous to you at...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>So apparently it's not vacuous to you at all. </i><br /><br />Just because you are trying to make a distinction doesn't mean that distinction is meaningful. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>The problem with only predicting a tree that is nested is that the number of such trees is so enormous that the probability of the actual one being one ... is virtually zero. </i><br /><br />Of course it is. Just like when we discover that trees form by a branching process, we don't know how a particular tree will form. However, the branching process is an infinitesimal of other possible patterns, so that discovery stringently limits the possibilities. It is significant to know that trees form by a branching process rather than suddenly appearing in the forest, or fully formed limbs with branches suddenly appear on the tree. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51244063539457867962014-04-14T19:31:07.922-07:002014-04-14T19:31:07.922-07:00Jeff: No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypotheti...Jeff: No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypothetico-deductive axioms that cometary impacts or any other historical event CAUSED a particular nested hierarchy that includes earth's extant and fossil species. <br /> <br />Z: Your position is vacuous ...<br /><br />J: And yet you replied above, to the same point,<br /><br />"We understand the distinction you're trying to make ..."<br /><br />So apparently it's not vacuous to you at all. You're either utterly confused or intellectually dishonest or both.<br /><br />The problem with only predicting a tree that is nested is that the number of such trees is so enormous that the probability of the actual one being one that includes earth's biota constrained in some significant degree by currently-observed fossil succession and what we currently can predict morphology- and phenotype-wise from our knowledge of genetics is virtually zero. I.e., there is precisely ZERO plausibilty of UCA given what we currently know. <br /><br />Thus, it matters not what the plausibility of SA is or isn't. When you have nothing, it's shameless to complain about others having nothing.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22734148811500998472014-04-06T12:54:11.277-07:002014-04-06T12:54:11.277-07:00Jeff: Bifurcating descent imply ANY of the extant ...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Bifurcating descent imply ANY of the extant fossil species of earth. </i><br /><br />No. It explains why we observe a nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Explanation simply IS the deducing of implications of the hypothetico-deductive axioms that constitute the theory to show that those implications are consistent with our "observations." </i><br /><br />We say Newton's Axioms are the explanation. The deductions are the specifics we use to test the explanation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />That's right. Bifurcating descent is the explanation. The explanation implies a nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypothetico-deductive axioms that cometary impacts or any other historical event CAUSED a particular nested hierarchy that includes earth's extant and fossil species. </i><br /><br />It's like pruning a tree. We can't be sure exactly how it will regrow, but it will be by a branching process. <br /> <br />Your position is vacuous and uninteresting. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68858284596326562792014-04-06T10:17:15.799-07:002014-04-06T10:17:15.799-07:00And BTW, in that same video I mentioned above, the...And BTW, in that same video I mentioned above, the scientists all admitted that Einstein's "space" is a great mystery. Actually, Einstein's space is not the mystery. It's Einstein's "time" that can't be defined such that we can still conceive of what we currently mean by "measuring" time PASSAGE. Many scientists don't understand definitions, and therefore deduction, and therefore the hypothetico-deductive methodology. They're just living in an epistemological world of personal credulity assuming that it MIRACULOUSLY equates to warranted inferential beliefs simply because they putatively do "science" for a living. But it doesn't. They're just utterly confused.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67887898375432921782014-04-06T09:34:57.787-07:002014-04-06T09:34:57.787-07:00Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested h...Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy.<br /><br />Z: We understand the distinction you're trying to make, and we have restated it previously. Common descent implies a nested hierarchy, but not any particular nested hierarchy. That's BECAUSE much of evolution is contingent, including cometary impacts.<br /><br />J: You don't understand the meaning of the word "BECAUSE." No one has IMPLIED from any set of hypothetico-deductive axioms that cometary impacts or any other historical event CAUSED a particular nested hierarchy that includes earth's extant and fossil species. You're oblivious to the nature of explanation/prediction/etc.<br /><br />Z: But to say the shape of an elm is due to bifurcation is not a trivial statement, even if you can't predict the exact pattern of bifurcation.<br /><br />J: Nor is it trivial to say that a Designer that intended for humans to both classify the way we do and interact with organisms would ALSO create organisms such that they are classifiable in terms of nested hierarchy. So we're tied so far. Now what you got?<br /><br />Jeff: You need to predict/imply ONE UCA tree that includes extant and fossil species in a relevant (to the constraints of fossil succession) temporal order from a set of hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions.<br /><br />Z: Um, no. Science doesn't have to know everything to know some things. An elm tree grows by bifurcation. <br /><br />J: We're tied. Now what you got? Show me how the inductive criteria break the tie. This is what you haven't even attempted. Nor have you even attempted to define what other plausibility criteria there ARE. But why would you? That would be carrying on an intelligent discussion.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63991234244420358272014-04-06T09:32:53.922-07:002014-04-06T09:32:53.922-07:00Jeff: You can't even say or write enough hypot...Jeff: You can't even say or write enough hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions to imply (i.e., EXPLAIN) any UCA tree that includes observed extant and fossil species, EVEN if you're willing to grant saltations to eliminate the need to posit unfossilized/unobserved intermediates.<br /><br />Z: Sure you can. It's called bifurcating descent with modification.<br /><br />J: Wrong as always. Bifurcating descent imply ANY of the extant fossil species of earth. You simply don't know what a prediction/implication is. Astonishing.<br /><br />Jeff: So what?<br /><br />Z: The same reason the theory of gravity argues against angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, it's the more parsimonious explanation, not to mention it leads to testable implications.<br />J: Wrong as always. You haven't provided an explanation. You've only spoke of a temporal/spatial mathematical modelling of putative memories, each of which and each ELEMENT of which you insist must be posited distinctly as ARBITRARY assumptions--which assumptions you couldn't non-arbitrarily claim to remember. <br />But let's forget your arbitrariness. You keep saying a mathematical model IS an explanation. It's not. Math uses quantitative relationships. As such, an uncaused history (one that has no ACTUAL explanation) can conceivably be modelled. An explanation, on the other hand, assigns causes and effects to antecedent and subsequent existential conditions, respectively. You have yet to state what CAUSES what in terms of Eintein's space, modernly-defined-matter, etc. So pony up, puppy. <br />State the axioms describing the antecedent configuration and causal capacities of 3-D-extended stuff at time 0 sufficient to IMPLY the configuration of 3-D-extended stuff (whether modernly-defined-matter, Einstein's space, etc) at time t1. Then, and ONLY then, can we apply the parsimony criteria to ER and the angel theory.<br /><br />Jeff: Inductive criteria apply TO explanations, not speculations.<br /><br />Z: That's not correct. Scientific speculations have entailments.<br /><br />J: Wrong as always. The scientific entailment IS the implication. Explanation simply IS the deducing of implications of the hypothetico-deductive axioms that constitute the theory to show that those implications are consistent with our "observations."<br /><br />Jeff: Einstein didn't say anything new ABOUT time, he simply defined time to be what no one else ever defined it to BE.<br /><br />Z: No one ever defined time in terms of a clock?! That's funny.<br /><br />J: Right. We couldn't even conceive of the MEANING of an INACCURATE clock if time requires, for its very definition, the definition of a clock. This is the problem with you clueless ones. You can't define your terms, much less show entailments/implications.<br /><br />Jeff: Einstein didn't rule out Newton's time and space.<br /><br />Z: That is incorrect. Einsteinian physics is inconsistent with Newtonian physics.<br /><br />J: True, but neither Einstein nor Newton ever provided anything but a mathematical model. And mathematical modelling, per se, doesn't even rule out metaphysical phenomenalism. And you have yet to show, by enumerating the respective hypothetico-deductive axioms, which is more parsimonious.<br /><br />Jeff: Einstein's space, e.g., is what most people would call matter.<br /><br />Z: Heh. Even funnier. No, space is not what most people would call matter.<br /><br />J: Right. Not "space;" Einstein's space. You've forgotten, apparently, that Einstein's space is NOT the only meaning of space used by humans. I just watched a youtube video where the scientists admitted that most people think in terms of Newtonian conceptions of space and time. Apparently you're one of a very few utterly clueless wonders in the world.<br /><br />Jeff: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy.<br /><br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28217678335181966752014-03-30T10:32:14.692-07:002014-03-30T10:32:14.692-07:00Jeff: You can't even say or write enough hypot...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>You can't even say or write enough hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions to imply (i.e., EXPLAIN) any UCA tree that includes observed extant and fossil species, EVEN if you're willing to grant saltations to eliminate the need to posit unfossilized/unobserved intermediates. </i><br /><br />Sure you can. It's called bifurcating descent with modification. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So what? </i><br /><br />The same reason the theory of gravity argues against angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, it's the more parsimonious explanation, not to mention it leads to testable implications. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Inductive criteria apply TO explanations, not speculations. </i><br /><br />That's not correct. Scientific speculations have entailments. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Einstein didn't say anything new ABOUT time, he simply defined time to be what no one else ever defined it to BE. </i><br /><br />No one ever defined time in terms of a clock?! That's funny. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Einstein didn't rule out Newton's time and space. </i><br /><br />That is incorrect. Einsteinian physics is inconsistent with Newtonian physics. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Einstein's space, e.g., is what most people would call matter. </i><br /><br />Heh. Even funnier. No, space is not what most people would call matter. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />We understand the distinction you're trying to make, and we have restated it previously. Common descent implies a nested hierarchy, but not any particular nested hierarchy. That's because much of evolution is contingent, including cometary impacts. <br /><br />But to say the shape of an elm is due to bifurcation is not a trivial statement, even if you can't predict the exact pattern of bifurcation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You need to predict/imply ONE UCA tree that includes extant and fossil species in a relevant (to the constraints of fossil succession) temporal order from a set of hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions. </i><br /><br />Um, no. Science doesn't have to know everything to know some things. An elm tree grows by bifurcation. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57936413502647287562014-03-30T08:15:11.213-07:002014-03-30T08:15:11.213-07:00A couple more of your errors above need addressing...A couple more of your errors above need addressing:<br /><br />J: Positing is not implying from axioms.<br /><br />Z: Cladogenesis is a proposed hypothesis to explained the observed nested hierarchy. <br /><br />J: It doesn't explain THE OBSERVED nested hierarchy. It implies A nested hierarchy. That's your confusion. There are tons of nested hierarchies that are consistent with mere cladogenesis. You need to predict/imply ONE UCA tree that includes extant and fossil species in a relevant (to the constraints of fossil succession) temporal order from a set of hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions. No one is even in the ball park of doing this.<br /><br />Jeff: Rather, he merely added a positive volume'd entity that is, per the older definition, MATTER!<br /><br />Z: No. It's a spacetime manifold. <br /><br />J: Can you even articulate the traditional definition of matter? I realize Einstein's space is not what modern scientists call matter. That's NOT what I said. Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19224353379401952702014-03-30T08:03:04.645-07:002014-03-30T08:03:04.645-07:00Z, I'm way busy and haven't had time to ev...Z, I'm way busy and haven't had time to even finish reading your longer post above. But let me address right quickly your shorter, recent responses.<br /><br />Jeff: No one can explain a biological history in terms of either UCA or SA.<br /><br />Z: Indeed, they can and have.<br /><br />J: No, they haven't. You can't even say or write enough hypothetico-deductive axiomatic propositions to imply (i.e., EXPLAIN) any UCA tree that includes observed extant and fossil species, EVEN if you're willing to grant saltations to eliminate the need to posit unfossilized/unobserved intermediates.<br /><br />Jeff: Thus, the ability to classify per a hierarchical tree is not unexpected per big-D ID.<br /><br />Z: There are many other patterns a designer could have chosen other than one that makes it look like common descent. <br /><br />J: So what? Where there is no actual explanation of a UCA or SA biological history any one can actually believe, there is no inductive evidence for either. Inductive criteria apply TO explanations, not speculations. And you have yet to define what other kind of criteria you are using to derive the notion of "evidence" from. Nor will you, because what you mean by evidence is just personal credulity.<br /><br />Jeff: No, what did Einstein say time IS.<br /><br />Z: It's one dimension of the four-dimensional spacetime manifold.<br /><br />J: What he said was that a specific time is the interpreted reading of what is interpreted to be a clock. By that definition, time always was relative to the individual since clocks routinely give different interpreted "readings." IOW, Einstein didn't say anything new ABOUT time, he simply defined time to be what no one else ever defined it to BE. As such, he never showed that what people theretofore meant by time is invalid.<br /><br />In short, Einstein didn't rule out Newton's time and space. He created new definitions of time and space that in no way contradict the role of Newton's time and space. Einstein's space, e.g., is what most people would call matter. It is conceived of as a finite, 3-D extended substance residing, moving, expanding, etc, IN Newton's space.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54427329323389484092014-03-25T13:08:38.226-07:002014-03-25T13:08:38.226-07:00Jeff: No, what did Einstein say time IS.
It'...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>No, what did Einstein say time IS. </i><br /><br />It's one dimension of the four-dimensional spacetime manifold. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78866128315621495632014-03-25T13:06:42.378-07:002014-03-25T13:06:42.378-07:00Jeff: No one can explain a biological history in t...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>No one can explain a biological history in terms of either UCA or SA. </i><br /><br />Indeed, they can and have. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Thus, the ability to classify per a hierarchical tree is not unexpected per big-D ID. </i><br /><br />There are many other patterns a designer could have chosen other than one that makes it look like common descent. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45027922891908047552014-03-25T07:25:28.028-07:002014-03-25T07:25:28.028-07:00Jeff: Adding bifurcating descent doesn't disti...Jeff: Adding bifurcating descent doesn't distinguish between SA and UCA since bifurcating descent is consistent with SA.<br /><br />Z: SA (special ancestry?) simply means that taxa form branches. The evidence strongly supports that these branches all belong to the same tree. <br /><br />Jeff: By SA I mean separate ancestries. No one can explain a biological history in terms of either UCA or SA. Thus, the inductive criteria applied to explanations (parsimony, breadth of explanation, etc) have no application to adjudicating which is true. What else are you meaning by evidential when rejecting one over the other? This is what you haven't and can't answer.<br /><br />We can say, however, that a Designer that renders inductive citeria valid and natural for humans because of sympathetic interest in humans would also render creation as utilitarianly-classifiable as was consistent with other ends of creation. Thus, the ability to classify per a hierarchical tree is not unexpected per big-D ID.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35610740484730590272014-03-25T06:54:02.916-07:002014-03-25T06:54:02.916-07:00Jeff: What did Einstein say time was that was diff...Jeff: What did Einstein say time was that was different than Newton.<br /><br />Z: Einstein said time depends on the observer. <br /><br />J: No, what did Einstein say time IS. Not a particular time, like 2pm, but time PER SE, as opposed to Newton.<br /><br />Jeff: Regularity presupposes a conception of time.<br /><br />Z: We observe regularities. <br /><br />J: Regularity PRESUPPOSES a categorical meaning of time. We DON'T observe time. So what definition of time renders a definition of "regularity" intelligible. On the other hand, if what you're calling time is observable, does it have positive volume?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38651434607091946352014-03-24T05:14:22.278-07:002014-03-24T05:14:22.278-07:00Jeff: Is space PER Einstein 4- dimensional or 3-di...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Is space PER Einstein 4- dimensional or 3-dimensional? </i><br /><br />Space and time are our perceptions of spacetime. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Your belief about the age of the earth has nothing to do with the plausibility of UCA because no one can calculate a non-zero probability for the occurrence of any UCA tree in that time-frame. </i><br /><br />Given the hypothesis, the tree is of such extent that it couldn't have grown in a few thousand years. Hence, showing the world is only a few thousand years old would falsify the theory of evolution. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>If UCA is true history, there was A SPECIFIC TREE! </i><br /><br />Sure, we have evidence of a specific tree, and a strongly supported theory of tree formation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There's no inductive evidence of it, and you have yet to define what non-inductive, scientific evidence even means. </i><br /><br />Science includes induction, but is not simply induction, but hypothetico-deduction. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So you do believe in naive falsification after all. </i><br /><br />Not at all. The falsification itself is fraught with its own theoretical limitations, however, given the falsification, which is your proposition, then it would falsify the theory of evolution we have today. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>That frame of reference is Newton's space. </i><br /><br />Um, no. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Rather, he merely added a positive volume'd entity that is, per the older definition, MATTER! </i><br /><br />No. It's a spacetime manifold. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>A human body is a composite of entities/beings. The only sense in which it is a unit is in terms of a concept only. </i><br /><br />entity, something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality. <br /><br />Humans have as much a separate and distinct existence as any other object. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Regularity presupposes a conception of time. </i><br /><br />We observe regularities. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>What did Einstein say time was that was different than Newton. </i><br /><br />Einstein said time depends on the observer. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>The claim isthat cladogenesis occurs. </i><br /><br />Z: The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".<br /><br />J: Positing is not implying from axioms.<br /><br />Cladogenesis is a proposed hypothesis to explained the observed nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Adding bifurcating descent doesn't distinguish between SA and UCA since bifurcating descent is consistent with SA. </i><br /><br />SA (special ancestry?) simply means that taxa form branches. The evidence strongly supports that these branches all belong to the same tree. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39255054987278225492014-03-23T20:08:44.655-07:002014-03-23T20:08:44.655-07:00Jeff: Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is...Jeff: Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is time the 4th dimension?<br /><br />Z: Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional.<br /><br />J: Is space PER Einstein 4- dimensional or 3-dimensional?<br /><br />Jeff: There's no reason to believe 4.5 billion years is long enough. So that whole point is irrelevant.<br /><br />Z: You just admitted the point, but pretended you didn't.<br /><br />J: Wrong. Your belief about the age of the earth has nothing to do with the plausibility of UCA because no one can calculate a non-zero probability for the occurrence of any UCA tree in that time-frame.<br /><br />Jeff: You can't CALCULATE a NON-ZERO probability for the occurrence for ANY UCA tree using fossils and observed organisms as data points.<br /><br />Z: Any specific tree, that is correct.<br /><br />J: Newsflash: If UCA is true history, there was A SPECIFIC TREE! Now, let's make the simple conclusion: One, two, three -- a NON-ZERO probability of UCA can't be calculated or otherwise demonstrated. UCA can't be explained. No one can articulate or think that many hypothetico-deductive axioms. And inductive evidence ONLY applies to explanations, not believed stories.<br /><br />Jeff: There's no inductive evidence for that belief.<br /><br />Z: There scientific evidence that birds and therapods share a common ancestor, including anatomical data.<br /><br />J: There's no inductive evidence of it, and you have yet to define what non-inductive, scientific evidence even means.<br /><br />Jeff: And yet you say a young earth would falsify UCA.<br /><br />Z: Yes, it would.<br /><br />J: So you do believe in naive falsification after all. You contradict yourself incessantly.<br /><br />Zachriel: Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime.<br /><br />Jeff: Does it have a positive volume?<br /><br />Z: Yes.<br /><br />J: Correct. And its volume is finite. And since you claim it expands, etc, a frame of reference is used to conceive of such motion. That frame of reference is Newton's space. IOW, Einstein didn't rid the mind of the use of Newton's space. Rather, he merely added a positive volume'd entity that is, per the older definition, MATTER! Assigning a variable called mass to some matter (by the old definition) doesn't render Einstein's space version of matter any less matter per the old definition.<br /><br />Jeff: We all do, EVEN while inferring it is a composite.<br /><br />Z: People are entities, but have parts. Stoves are entities, but have parts.<br /><br />J: A human body is a composite of entities/beings. The only sense in which it is a unit is in terms of a concept only. And that's why our language works for its purposes while not being ontologically accurate.<br /><br />Z: entity, something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality<br /><br />J: Right, some THING, SINGULAR!<br /><br />Jeff: That assumes that "clock" is definable apart from a pre-existing conception of time.<br /><br />Z: An observed physical regularity.<br /><br />J: Regularity presupposes a conception of time. What did Einstein say time was that was different than Newton. Flesh it out.<br /><br />Zachriel: Cladogenesis is the hypothesis.<br /><br />Jeff: Cladogenesis is consistent with SA. UCA is the issue.<br /><br />Z: Again, you admit the claim, but pretend you didn't. Not sure why you are doing that.<br /><br />J: The claim isthat cladogenesis occurs. But that is consistent with SA as well. There is no inductive evidence for UCA.<br /><br />Z: In any case, any claim is consistent with an infinitude of possible explanations, however, few of those explanations have the quality of a scientific explanation, such as parsimony and the ability to make novel and distinguishing predictions. <br /><br />J: UCA is inexplicable, thus it is not discernibly the most parimonious explanation. It implies no future events. Adding bifurcating descent doesn't distinguish between SA and UCA since bifurcating descent is consistent with SA. YOu're utterly confused.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61288379893925005572014-03-23T11:40:11.944-07:002014-03-23T11:40:11.944-07:00Zachriel: Cladogenesis is the hypothesis.
Jeff: ...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Cladogenesis is the hypothesis. </i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Cladogenesis is consistent with SA. UCA is the issue. </i><br /><br />Again, you admit the claim, but pretend you didn't. Not sure why you are doing that. <br /><br />In any case, any claim is consistent with an infinitude of possible explanations, however, few of those explanations have the quality of a scientific explanation, such as parsimony and the ability to make novel and distinguishing predictions. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30739994203066278202014-03-23T11:37:40.489-07:002014-03-23T11:37:40.489-07:00Jeff: Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is time the 4th dimension? </i><br /><br />Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There's no reason to believe 4.5 billion years is long enough. So that whole point is irrelevant. </i><br /><br />You just admitted the point, but pretended you didn't. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You can't CALCULATE a NON-ZERO probability for the occurrence for ANY UCA tree using fossils and observed organisms as data points. </i><br /><br />Any specific tree, that is correct. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There's no inductive evidence for that belief. </i><br /><br />There scientific evidence that birds and therapods share a common ancestor, including anatomical data. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>And yet you say a young earth would falsify UCA. </i><br /><br />Yes, it would. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>What's the red pill? </i><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arcJksDgCOU<br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime. </i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Does it have a positive volume? </i><br /><br />Yes. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>We all do, EVEN while inferring it is a composite. </i><br /><br />People are entities, but have parts. Stoves are entities, but have parts. <br /><br />entity, something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality<br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>That assumes that "clock" is definable apart from a pre-existing conception of time. </i><br /><br />An observed physical regularity. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72727433185900813182014-03-23T09:09:08.422-07:002014-03-23T09:09:08.422-07:00Jeff: Define "spatial" such that it'...Jeff: Define "spatial" such that it's distinguisable from what we mean by a mere set of "spatial" points in Newton's space.<br /><br />Z: It's in four dimensions.<br /><br />J: Again, are you saying that Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, or is time the 4th dimension? Please, just ANSWER a question directly. Elaboration is fine if added TO the answer.<br /><br />Jeff: UCA per se doesn't say a thing about rates of variation.<br /><br />Z: UCA doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even if life bifurcated every generation, there wouldn't be enough time to account for the diversity we observe. <br /><br />J: There's no reason to believe 4.5 billion years is long enough. So that whole point is irrelevant.<br /><br />Jeff: You can't even calculate a non-zero probability for any singe UCA tree in the first place <br /><br />Z: Not sure what you mean, unless you seem to be suggesting that evolution should be able to predict the exact tree that life follows, which it doesn't purport to do so. <br /><br />J: I mean exactly what I said. You can't CALCULATE a NON-ZERO probability for the occurrence for ANY UCA tree using fossils and observed organisms as data points.<br /><br />Jeff: No UCA lineage does either.<br /><br />Z: Of course they do. For instance, birds share a common ancestor with therapods. <br /><br />J: There's no inductive evidence for that belief. Because there is no articulable explanation for such a genealogical history. And inductive criteria apply ONLY to explanations, not specultations.<br />Jeff: For the umpteenth time, naive falsification is IMPOSSIBLE. <br /><br />Z: Of course. Every observation is theory-laden. See discussion of Kelvin above. <br /><br />J: And yet you say a young earth would falsify UCA. <br /><br />Jeff: So, again, if you don't think you can inductively rule out (using inductive criteria) that you're a brain in a vat,<br /><br />Z: What the red pill?<br /><br />J: What's the red pill?<br /><br />Z: What other evidence do you have? <br /><br />J: For what?<br /><br />Z: Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime.<br /><br />J: Does it have a positive volume? If so, is the volume 3-D or 4-D? If not, it's not "stuff out there." How do you measure a volume in 4-D?<br /><br />Jeff: But most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity.<br /><br />Z: Huh? They refer to it as a single entity, even while knowing it has parts. <br /><br />J: We all do, EVEN while inferring it is a composite. Just like we still say sunset and sunrise, EVEN while knowing that is not what we actually believe is going on. So you haven't contradicted me at all. You really don't get logic even at the most basic level, do you?<br /><br />Z: Sure you can always come up with transforms. However, relativity theory makes claims about space and time, claims that have their own empirical implications.<br /><br />J: Define "empirical" and "time" such that you can "empirically" demonstrate that time is other than how Newton thought of it? Then you'll be getting somewhere with respect to showing it's testable, as per the axioms that render testing conceivable. Til then, you're just using words that have the same conventional meaning that Newton used without attempting to communicate the differences.<br />If I remember correctly, Einstein said a particular time was a particular reading of a clock. That assumes that "clock" is definable apart from a pre-existing conception of time. Clear me up. Was he using "time" in two senses? If not, what did "clock" mean to Einstein?<br /><br />Z: Cladogenesis is the hypothesis. It's also observed. You posit the mechanism then look for entailments. <br /><br />J: Cladogenesis is consistent with SA. UCA is the issue.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39068117349847027362014-03-15T19:02:16.539-07:002014-03-15T19:02:16.539-07:00Jeff: Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time a...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time and space are mere frames of reference, as conceived of pre-Einstein. </i><br /><br />Sure you can always come up with transforms. However, relativity theory makes claims about space and time, claims that have their own empirical implications. For instance, if you accelerate a radioactive particle, it's half-life is extended. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Until you IMPLY effects in TERMS of positive volumes of stuff "out there," you're just modelling mathematically. </i><br /><br />Relativity does posit "stuff out there", including curved spacetime. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>But most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity. </i><br /><br />Huh? They refer to it as a single entity, even while knowing it has parts. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>They believe it's a COMPOSITE of entities. </i><br /><br />Are human entities? Or a composite of parts? <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Inductive criteria apply to EXPLANATIONS. </i><br /><br />Relativity is an explanation. Indeed, Newton didn't explain gravity, Einstein did. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No tests yet exist to indicate inductively that stoves are composites of positive-volumed entities. </i><br /><br />You're out there alright. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>That still leaves any particular tree (and there was ONLY ONE!) highly improbable. </i><br /><br />Of course. The specific tree is a tiny sliver of possible trees, while any tree is a tiny sliver of possible other patterns. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So you're dead wrong. </i><br /><br />Huh? It's trivial mathematics that bifurcation leads to a nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Positing is not implying from axioms. </i><br /><br />Gee whiz. Cladogenesis is the hypothesis. It's also observed. You posit the mechanism then look for entailments. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33765999300415738422014-03-15T18:54:29.269-07:002014-03-15T18:54:29.269-07:00Jeff: Define "spatial" such that it'...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Define "spatial" such that it's distinguisable from what we mean by a mere set of "spatial" points in Newton's space. </i><br /><br />It's in four dimensions. From someone confined to three dimensional space, if you go in a line that you determine to be straight locally, you end up following a curved line globally. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>UCA per se doesn't say a thing about rates of variation. </i><br /><br />UCA doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even if life bifurcated every generation, there wouldn't be enough time to account for the diversity we observe. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Additional hypothetico-deductive axioms are required for that. </i><br /><br />A lot is simple observation, such as generation time in higher orders. So no, you are wrong. A young Earth would falsify evolutionary theory, and everyone knew it when Darwin proposed his theory. <br /><br />Interesting story. Kelvin determined the age of the Earth based on it rate of cooling, and determined it couldn't be much more than a few tens-of-millions of years old. That didn't leave enough time for evolution. <br /><br />Geologists and biologists were quite sure that the Earth was much older. The discrepancy persisted until the Curie's discovery radiation, which heats the interior of the Earth. It was Kelvin's physics that was falsified. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You can't even calculate a non-zero probability for any singe UCA tree in the first place unless </i><br /><br />Not sure what you mean, unless you seem to be suggesting that evolution should be able to predict the exact tree that life follows, which it doesn't purport to do so. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No UCA lineage does either. </i><br /><br />Of course they do. For instance, birds share a common ancestor with therapods. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>I didn't say "TOE," I said UCA. </i><br /><br />Not sure you can quite separate them that way, but given even minimal knowledge of biological reproduction, a young Earth would falsify common descent. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>If particles are "like" points in the sense that they have zero volume, then there are no macroscopic objects.</i><br /><br />Even if particles are point-like, they have associated fields that have volume. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>For the umpteenth time, naive falsification is IMPOSSIBLE. </i><br /><br />Of course. Every observation is theory-laden. See discussion of Kelvin above. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So, again, if you don't think you can inductively rule out (using inductive criteria) that you're a brain in a vat, </i><br /><br />What the red pill? What other evidence do you have? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10373471757368179382014-03-15T15:11:19.768-07:002014-03-15T15:11:19.768-07:00Jeff: And I explained how the very definition of m...Jeff: And I explained how the very definition of manifold leaves the very specificity that would render Einstein's and Newton's spaces distinguishable unprovided.<br /><br />Z: They are distinguished because Einstein's manifold is curved.<br /><br />J: For crying out loud! The definition said a manifold is a set of spatial points. Define "spatial" such that it's distinguisable from what we mean by a mere set of "spatial" points in Newton's space. Geesh. You do realize that there are subsets of spatial points in Newton's space don't you?<br /><br />Jeff: UCA doesn't imply any of the contraries to those hypotheses.<br /><br />Z: Sure it does. If the Earth is young, then there would not have been enough time for the number of bifurcations requires to explain the diversity of life.<br /><br />J: UCA per se doesn't say a thing about rates of variation. Additional hypothetico-deductive axioms are required for that.<br /><br />Z: If mammals existed in the Precambrian, they would precede any plausible evolutionary ancestor.<br /><br />J: You can't even calculate a non-zero probability for any singe UCA tree in the first place unless, at minimum, you're willing to do so unconstrained by the laws of physics and chemistry, which is a violation of inductive criteria.<br /><br />Z: Centaurs and griffins also have no plausible evolutionary ancestor.<br /><br />J: No UCA lineage does either. That's the point. Inductive criteria applies to EXPLANATIONS, not personal credulity and speculation.<br /><br />Jeff: One can always explain away the "falsifying observation" by other assumptions consistent with the hypothesis in question.<br /><br />Z: You can say anything you want, but a 6000 year old Earth would falsify the Theory of Evolution which requires millions of years.<br /><br />J: I didn't say "TOE," I said UCA. <br /><br />Jeff: Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience.<br /><br />Z: That is truly a bizarre position. Everything hinges on volumes for you. Never fear. Macroscopic objects have volume, even if they are mostly empty space filled with point-like particles.<br /><br />J: If particles are "like" points in the sense that they have zero volume, then there are no macroscopic objects. You're UTTERLY confused.<br /><br />Jeff: Not only have you not falsified metaphysical phenomenalism<br /><br />Z: You can't falsify metaphysical phenomenalism. Not with Newtonian theory. Not with General Relativity. Not with quantum theory. Not with saying objects have volume. You're a brain in a vat, and you can't tell otherwise. <br /><br />J: Indeed. For the umpteenth time, naive falsification is IMPOSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean one can't hypothesize a causal ROLE for the volumes and shapes of entities such that it's implied effects can be modeled and tested against observation. Then, if tests of these theories "passed" and had greater parsimony and/or explanatory breadth, they would be BETTER explanations, per induction.<br />But scientists haven't even done THAT. So, again, if you don't think you can inductively rule out (using inductive criteria) that you're a brain in a vat, then your positing stuff out there is counter-inductive and therefore non-evidential in nature.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42012745329828053542014-03-15T15:09:04.637-07:002014-03-15T15:09:04.637-07:00Z: It's a four-dimensional manifold, as oppose...Z: It's a four-dimensional manifold, as opposed to Newton's space which is three-dimensional and flat.<br /><br />J: So modern physics models in terms of a 4-dimensional space (Einstein's space) and one dimension of time? You had said otherwise before. How do you design tests to EMPIRICALLY detect the role of a 4th dimension of space.<br /><br />Z: Have no exact idea what "Lorentzian-like" is supposed to mean,<br /><br />J: Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time and space are mere frames of reference, as conceived of pre-Einstein.<br /><br />Z: but General Relativity could just be a lucky congruence of equations and fact. So could Newton's Theory.<br /><br />J: Right. Until you IMPLY effects in TERMS of positive volumes of stuff "out there," you're just modelling mathematically. <br /><br />Z: Not sure why you are hung up on volumes. Any physical theory may just be a lucky congruence of equation and fact. Newton's included.<br /><br />J: Right. But if tax--subsidized scientists are not "hung-up" on explaining in terms of stuff "out there," then their POSITING stuff out is NON-parsimonious and therefore COUNTER-inductive/non-evidential. <br /><br />Jeff: Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience.<br /><br />Z: Of course it's a model. So is "The stove is hot".<br /><br />J: No. Most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity. They believe it's a COMPOSITE of tons of entities. And we don't have a model of the properties of its composites that imply all of the conscious states we attribute to it. A theory of a REALITY OUT THERE needs to do that. All we're doing now is mathematical modeling. There is utility to that, for sure. But no one but confused people believe that mathematical models that don't model the causal role of the VOLUMES of the composites are telling us what's REAL out there. If positive volumes are irrelevant, we can't test whether the math has anything to do with a world of stuff "out there."<br /><br />Z: Of course it does. That's exactly what we mean by inductive evidence. The stove is still hot.<br /><br />J: No. A mere math model that can't be tested for the difference between a caused and un-caused history OR a metaphysically phenomenal world of events and a non-metaphysically phenomenal world of events tells us nothing ABOUT a non-metaphysically phenomenal world INDUCTIVELY. Inductive criteria apply to EXPLANATIONS, not mere event modelling. Event math-models don't even per se imply that events are caused. <br /><br />Jeff: You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."<br /><br />Z: The model is a model of stuff "out there", just like Newton's. Just like the stove is hot.<br /><br />J: Not if you're merely assigning various quantities to points in space. Neither a quantity nor a point in space (i.e., location) is a being/entity. And that's all you're doing. No tests of mathematical models yet exist to indicate inductively that stoves are composites of positive-volumed entities. The evidence that our visual experience is caused by invisible, extended-space-occupying, impenetrable particles came very early in life in terms of the most parsimonious explanation of the correlation of tactile/audible/optical experience.<br /><br />Z: Bifurcating descent predicts the nested hierarchy.<br /><br />J: UCA per se doesn't require a nested hierarchy of the type you're talking about. And there are tons of DIFFERENT trees that satisfy mere bifurcated descent. That still leaves any particular tree (and there was ONLY ONE!) highly improbable. And no one can even articulate all the hypothetico-deductive axioms that would imply any single tree. So you're dead wrong.<br /><br />Z: The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".<br /><br />J: Positing is not implying from axioms.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5477804296500844212014-03-15T14:21:32.784-07:002014-03-15T14:21:32.784-07:00Z: We have, or rather, Einstein did. It's a fo...Z: We have, or rather, Einstein did. It's a four-dimensional manifold, as opposed to Newton's space which is three-dimensional and flat.<br /><br />J: So modern physics models in terms of a 4-dimensional space (Einstein's space) and one dimension of time? You had said otherwise before.<br /><br />Z: Have no exact idea what "Lorentzian-like" is supposed to mean,<br /><br />J: Clocks change with velocity, etc, and time and space are mere frames of reference, as conceived of pre-Einstein.<br /><br />Z: but General Relativity could just be a lucky congruence of equations and fact. So could Newton's Theory. Instead of gravity, maybe angels really do move the planets, but do so in such a way that it is indistinguishable from gravity.<br /><br />J: Right. Until you IMPLY effects in TERMS of positive volumes of stuff "out there," you're just modelling mathematically. Metaphysical phenomenalism and uncaused histories are not ruled out by mere mathematical modeling.<br /><br />Z: Not sure why you are hung up on volumes. Any physical theory may just be a lucky congruence of equation and fact. Newton's included.<br /><br />J: Right. But if you're not "hung-up" on explaining in terms of stuff "out there," then POSITING stuff out there when you don't even care if it's there is NON-parsimonious and therefore COUNTER-inductive. They should just tell the public they have no inductive evidence for the existence of matter and don't care if it exists if that's their actual position. That's all CH is asking for - HONESTY!<br /><br />Jeff: Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience.<br /><br />Z: Of course it's a model. So is "The stove is hot".<br /><br />J: But most people agree that the "stove" is not an entity. They believe it's a COMPOSITE of entities. And we don't have a model of the properties of its composites that imply all of the conscious states we attribute to it. The final theory of REALITY will need to do that. All we're doing now is mathematical modeling. There is utility to that, for sure. But no one but confused people believe that mathematical models that don't model the causal role of the VOLUMES of the composites are telling us what's REAL.If volumes are irrelevant, we can't test whether the math has anything to do with a world of stuff "out there."<br /><br />Z: Of course it does. That's exactly what we mean by inductive evidence. The stove is still hot.<br /><br />J: No. A mere math model that can't be tested for the difference between a caused and uncaused history OR a metaphysically phenomenal world of events and a non-metapysically phenomenal world of events tells us nothing ABOUT a non-metaphysically phenomenal world INDUCTIVELY. Inductive criteria apply to EXPLANATIONS. <br /><br />Jeff: You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."<br /><br />Z: The model is a model of stuff "out there", just like Newton's. Just like the stove is hot.<br /><br />J: Not if you're merely assigning values to points in space. And that's all you're doing. No tests yet exist to indicate inductively that stoves are composites of positive-volumed entities.<br /><br />Z: Bifurcating descent predicts the nested hierarchy.<br /><br />J: UCA per se doesn't require a nested hierarchy of the type you're talking about. And there are tons of DIFFERENT trees that satisfy mere bifurcated descent. That still leaves any particular tree (and there was ONLY ONE!) highly improbable. And no one can even articulate all the hypothetico-deductive axioms that would imply any single tree. So you're dead wrong.<br /><br />Z: The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there".<br /><br />J: Positing is not implying from axioms.<br /><br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62910494867128853862014-03-15T09:44:41.966-07:002014-03-15T09:44:41.966-07:00Jeff: You haven't even defined Einstein's ...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>You haven't even defined Einstein's space distinguishably from matter and Newton's space. </i><br /><br />We have, or rather, Einstein did. It's a four-dimensional manifold, as opposed to Newton's space which is three-dimensional and flat. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>The equations are consistent with Lorentzian-like explanations as far as we know. </i><br /><br />Have no exact idea what "Lorentzian-like" is supposed to mean, but General Relativity could just be a lucky congruence of equations and fact. So could Newton's Theory. Instead of gravity, maybe angels really do move the planets, but do so in such a way that it is indistinguishable from gravity. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Equations per se don't explain in terms of stuff OUT THERE unless the variables or constants in the equations are interpreted to MEAN particular VOLUMES of particular causal entities. </i><br /><br />Not sure why you are hung up on volumes. Any physical theory may just be a lucky congruence of equation and fact. Newton's included. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience. </i><br /><br />Of course it's a model. So is "The stove is hot". <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Thus, it provides ZERO inductive evidence of dark matter. </i><br /><br />Of course it does. That's exactly what we mean by inductive evidence. The stove is still hot. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there." </i><br /><br />The model is a model of stuff "out there", just like Newton's. Just like the stove is hot. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There is no explanation of ANY UCA history. </i><br /><br />You can keep repeating that, but just because you can't recognize an explanation when you see one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bifurcating descent predicts the nested hierarchy. The theory posits cladogenesis occurred "out there". <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>And I explained how the very definition of manifold leaves the very specificity that would render Einstein's and Newton's spaces distinguishable unprovided. </i><br /><br />They are distinguished because Einstein's manifold is curved. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>UCA doesn't imply any of the contraries to those hypotheses. </i><br /><br />Sure it does. If the Earth is young, then there would not have been enough time for the number of bifurcations requires to explain the diversity of life. If mammals existed in the Precambrian, they would precede any plausible evolutionary ancestor. Centaurs and griffins also have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>One can always explain away the "falsifying observation" by other assumptions consistent with the hypothesis in question.</i><br /><br />You can say anything you want, but a 6000 year old Earth would falsify the Theory of Evolution which requires millions of years. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience. </i><br /><br />That is truly a bizarre position. Everything hinges on volumes for you. Never fear. Macroscopic objects have volume, even if they are mostly empty space filled with point-like particles. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Not only have you not falsified metaphysical phenomenalism </i><br /><br />You can't falsify metaphysical phenomenalism. Not with Newtonian theory. Not with General Relativity. Not with quantum theory. Not with saying objects have volume. You're a brain in a vat, and you can't tell otherwise. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57140529398154728402014-03-15T08:20:23.959-07:002014-03-15T08:20:23.959-07:00Jeff: That's not observationally demonstrable....Jeff: That's not observationally demonstrable.<br /><br />Z: It's consistent with the hypothesis and gravitational theory.<br /><br />J: You haven't even defined Einstein's space distinguishably from matter and Newton's space. So you've made no argument yet. You're still just pontificating wildly.<br /><br />Jeff: I'm asking you WHAT is the evidence that "dark" matter exists in the right locations with the right quantities of mass to RENDER Einstein's equations CONFIRMED?<br /><br />Z: Einstein's equations have been confirmed by many different tests.<br /><br />J: The equations are consistent with Lorentzian-like explanations as far as we know. Equations per se don't explain in terms of stuff OUT THERE unless the variables or constants in the equations are interpreted to MEAN particular VOLUMES of particular causal entities.<br /><br />Jeff: If you don't know where it is and how much mass it has, what theoretical support are you talking about? You're certainly not talking about inductive support.<br /><br />Z: Inductive support is exactly what it is. A lot of evidence supports gravitational theory, so it is more plausible to hypothesize missing matter than to hypothesize that gravitational theory is wrong.<br /><br />J: Wrong. Gravitational "theory" is mere modelling of the seeming times and locations of conscious experience. As such, it is consistent with metaphysical phenomenalism. Thus, it provides ZERO inductive evidence of dark matter. Inductive criteria apply ONLY to explanations, NOT speculations.<br /><br />Z: And there are independent tests, as we pointed out.<br /><br />J: No. You're just confused about the difference between modelling (in terms of times and locations) of conscious experience and explaining in terms of positive-volume'd stuff "out there."<br /><br />Jeff: UCA is not falsifiable<br /><br />Z: Of course it's falsifiable.<br /><br />J: No. Naive falsification is impossible. And inductive criteria apply to explanations ONLY. There is no explanation of ANY UCA history.<br /><br />Jeff: and you have yet to even define how Einstein's space can utterly replace the Newtonian (i.e., intuitive) conception of space.<br /><br />Z: We have. You're just not listening. Einstein replaced Newtonian space with a four-dimensional manifold.<br /><br />J: And I explained how the very definition of manifold leaves the very specificity that would render Einstein's and Newton's spaces distinguishable unprovided. Feel free to provide it now.<br /><br />Jeff: I have specifically asked multiple times what observation would falsify UCA, and no one can answer it.<br /><br />Z: Show the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Show that mammals existed in the Precambrian. Show the existence of centaurs or griffins.<br /><br />J: UCA doesn't imply any of the contraries to those hypotheses. So you're just completely ignorant of how deduction works. Besides, naive falsification is impossible. One can always explain away the "falsifying observation" by other assumptions consistent with the hypothesis in question.<br /><br />Jeff: Once positive volumes are irrelevant to explanation, you're merely modelling phenomenal experience.<br /><br />Z: It's not a logical necessity, as you have claimed. Indeed, quantum particles are point-like in many respects.<br /><br />J: Once you're modelling by assigning properties to points in space, you're not contradicting metaphysical phenomenalism. And therefore positing stuff out there is non-parsimonious. This is what Bell and Einstein realized. Not only have you not falsified metaphysical phenomenalism, but modelling the past is not the same thing as explaining the past. Modelling past events is not inconsistent with events being UNCAUSED.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.com